Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.

Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
medal.

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

The person in question is Lt. Larry Thurlow, a leading member of the
leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' commanded a boat
alongside Kerry during the 1969 incident in question.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined." [conspicuous omission acknowledging his award docs said he was
under fire at the time]

Thurlow went on to say:

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."


So just this week, he's saying he believed he got his Bronze Star for
coming to the rescue of a mined boat.


So which is it: did he accept his Bronze Star knowing that it was for
actions under fire and simply "shrugged and moved on" as you are now
making an unsubstantiated claim of or did he get his award not knowing
it stated prominently that he had been under fire (despite the fact that
the award text would have been read to him when presented as well as in
his service record) and only now, 35 years later, become aware of the
citation text????


Your version of events does not jibe with what the Mr. Hurlow himself is
saying.




Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and moved
on.

Only he did not do that. He's claiming that all along he believed his
award was for rescuing the crew of a mined boat.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them and
there were written entries in my service record stating why as well.




Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country.

Unlike Kerry, Bush isn't interested in discussing issues un-related to the
Presidential election.


The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
presidential election issue from 1991-2000...why is it now unrelated?




--Mike

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.


Right. Anything to avoid discussing Kerry's record since he left the Navy.


That will be there as well. And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

That will be there as well.


Not if the Democrats can help it.



And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.

"BOB" wrote in message ...

You mean that's what you goose-stepping, neocon wingnut Bush
bootlickers and lapdogs consider consider "liberal" to mean.


No, that's the way it is.



Not the real world.


It appears you're out of touch with the real world.

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

That will be there as well.


Not if the Democrats can help it.


Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.

We shall see soon enough.


And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.


Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.



Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.


Q. When did Bush become president?
A. January 2001

Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
A. a few days after 9/11


Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?

A second bonus question....

Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?

A. Never.



The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?



--Mike

(BUFDRVR) writes:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are.

Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.


Just saw this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...l=chi-news-hed



Feb. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
Anti-Kerry vets not there that day

By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune
Published August 21, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more
than 35 years ago-three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of
those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28,
1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the
focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of
swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve
the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and
three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us-the rivers, the ambushes,
the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service-even those from reporters at the
Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The
critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts
on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has
splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those
of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue,
especially when they come from people who were not there.

.......

You can use bugmenot.com if you want to eschew registration.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.

My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.

David Derbes

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:11:14 GMT, BOB wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell in message :

You

plonk
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 )

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system. They're guilty as charged. But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events." Alexa connects some totally different dots. 8/6/04 )

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

From: David Fritzinger
Date: 8/21/2004 8:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"David Fritzinger" wrote in message
...

No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
Bush opponents.


Please cite some of that history.



We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.


Did we? Prove it.

What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in
the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
a pattern here.

--
Dave Fritzinger

But that's not proof. For proof you need to be able to name and cite evidence
each and every single step between person A doing action B and having it affect
person C.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike wrote:

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.

The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
presidential election issue from 1991-2000

Close, they made it an issue in 1992. When that failed, they *did not* make any
mention of Vietnam in '96. They did tout Dole's WWII record, but did not make
it the center piece of the campaign.

why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"